Pokhran II not fully successful: Scientist

[Daredevil]

Should India sign the CTBT ? Otherwise conduct the more test? if India conduct the more test then it will hamper the Indo-US nuclear deal.What should India do now?

India should not sign CTBT until it is sure that all of its designs work perfectly by ding more nuclear tests and gather enough data for future simulations. Once it is sure about the capability of weapons, it should sign CTBT.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

If the US congress did not ratify CTBT (during Bill Clinton as President of US) it really does not matter whether they sign it or not.

Has there been a US test since signing?

 

[RPK]

Has there been a US test since signing?

OOE sir Are you sure US is not testing Nucleartest simulation in supercomputers?

 

[RPK]

Navy chief dismisses scientist?s claims, says Pokhran II a success
New Delhi: Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta on Thursday said that 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were successful and dismissed claims made by senior DRDO scientist K Santhanam to the contrary.

Reacting to the startling revelation made by the top nuclear scientist K Santhanam, Admiral Mehta said, “The tests were adequate. We believe whatever the scientists tell us. The scientists said the tests were enough and tested. We believe the scientists, as they provide us with nuclear capability.”

Admiral Mehta statement came while he was addressing his farewell press conference in the capital this afternoon.

Admiral Mehta’s statement came even as the Defence Ministry and former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra too dismissed Santhanam’s statement, by asserting that India has a “meaningful” number of nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.

Santhanam, a DRDO scientist who was associated with Pokhran II nuclear tests, had claimed that the tests were only partially successful as the results were much below expectations.


The startling revelations made by Santhanam have raised doubts over country’s nuclear prowess and its ability to conduct such tests.



It has also stirred up a hornet’s nest by giving fresh credence to the earlier debates in the foreign media over the success of India’s nuclear tests

Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, claimed that the yield for the thermonuclear test or hydrogen bomb in popular usage was much lower than what was claimed.

As per him the yield of Pokharan II tests can only be classified as a “fizzle” rather than big bang.

In nuclear terminology, a test is classified as a fizzle when the yield is below expectation.

Santham had also stressed that the country needs to conduct more nuclear tests to consolidate its position and improve its knowledge of nuclear weapon programme before joining Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

“Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,'' Santhanam said.

Soon after the tests, the Indian authorities claimed that Pokhran II test was a huge success as it yielded 45 kilotons (KT). However, this was contradicted by the western experts who said that it was not more than 20 KT.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

OOE sir Are you sure US is not testing Nucleartest simulation in supercomputers?

Zero yield testing and computer simulations are not forbidden by the CTBT, only positive yield tests are.

There is movement to include computer simulations and zero yield tests in the next round of CTBT, including by the Chinese and the British, but thus far, both Moscow and Washington has rejected that proposal.

 

[mattster]

Its ridiculous for a guy like Brajesh Mishra to say that Santhanam does not know what he is talking about because Kalam said so.

Kalam is not a nuclear physicist....Santhanam is. He was directly involved in the process. I suspect he(santhanam) came out with this statement because its a way to preempt any attempt by the Congress goverment to cave in and sign the CTBT.

Every nuclear power that signed the CTBT did it after they had finished with their tests.

As an engineer.....I am really curious about those folks who say that supercomputer simulations are enough. Regardless of how good your simulations are.....you still need real-time test data to corroborate the simulation results....otherwise how would you be able to prove that your simulations are accurate. Its like trying to prove a negative !!

Given that they only had one thermonuclear device test, and it failed.....then where does the real-time data for this type of explosion come from to validate the simulation results ??

Unless they have successful tests, i just dont see how they can validate their simulation model unless some other country provides them with the test data.....and who is going to do that ???

 

[RPK]

Zero yield testing and computer simulations are not forbidden by the CTBT, only positive yield tests are.

There is movement to include computer simulations and zero yield tests in the next round of CTBT, including by the Chinese and the British, but thus far, both Moscow and Washington has rejected that proposal.

Sir thats why india rejecting to sign the NPT & CTBT. Big5 got all datas to simulate future tests, India donnt have full pleged data. once it got it will go ahead to sign CTBT & also ratify it unlike US

 

[Daredevil]

Zero yield testing and computer simulations are not forbidden by the CTBT, only positive yield tests are.

There is movement to include computer simulations and zero yield tests in the next round of CTBT, including by the Chinese and the British, but thus far, both Moscow and Washington has rejected that proposal.

Sir, is it still possible for US to do positive yield tests and still go undetected by other countries.

 

[Daredevil]

Its ridiculous for a guy like Brajesh Mishra to say that Santhanam does not know what he is talking about because Kalam said so.

Kalam is not a nuclear physicist....Santhanam is. He was directly involved in the process. I suspect he(santhanam) came out with this statement because its a way to preempt any attempt by the Congress goverment to cave in and sign the CTBT.

Every nuclear power that signed the CTBT did it after they had finished with their tests.

As an engineer.....I am really curious about those folks who say that supercomputer simulations are enough. Regardless of how good your simulations are.....you still need real-time test data to corroborate the simulation results....otherwise how would you be able to prove that your simulations are accurate. Its like trying to prove a negative !!

Given that they only had one thermonuclear device test, and it failed.....then where does the real-time data for this type of explosion come from to validate the simulation results ??

Unless they have successful tests, i just dont see how they can validate their simulation model unless some other country provides them with the test data.....and who is going to do that ???

What is stratling to me is, Dr. Shantanam is quoting other sources to make his point instead of giving out the information that he directly knows from those tests. Something is really not right with these kind of statements.

``Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,'' Santhanam told TOI on Wednesday.

 

[RPK]

Its ridiculous for a guy like Brajesh Mishra to say that Santhanam does not know what he is talking about because Kalam said so.

Kalam is not a nuclear physicist....Santhanam is. He was directly involved in the process. I suspect he(santhanam) came out with this statement because its a way to preempt any attempt by the Congress goverment to cave in and sign the CTBT.

Every nuclear power that signed the CTBT did it after they had finished with their tests.

As an engineer.....I am really curious about those folks who say that supercomputer simulations are enough. Regardless of how good your simulations are.....you still need real-time test data to corroborate the simulation results....otherwise how would you be able to prove that your simulations are accurate. Its like trying to prove a negative !!

Given that they only had one thermonuclear device test, and it failed.....then where does the real-time data for this type of explosion come from to validate the simulation results ??

Unless they have successful tests, i just dont see how they can validate their simulation model unless some other country provides them with the test data.....and who is going to do that ???

I doubt that, seams like Mr.Santhanam from DRDO Not from BARC, he is looking about the Test Site Preparations not the thermonuclear device

 

[RPK]

Here the guys involved in Pokhran-II


Project Chief Coordinators
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (later, President of India), Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and Head of the DRDO.
Dr. R. Chidambaram, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Atomic energy.

Development and test teams

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Director of BARC.
Dr. Satinder Kumar Sikka, Director; Thermonuclear Weapon Development.
Dr. M.S. Ramkumar, Director of Nuclear Fuel and Automation Manufacturing Group; Director, Nuclear Component Manufacture.
Dr. D.D. Sood, Director of Radiochemistry and Isotope Group; Director, Nuclear Materials Acquisition.
Dr. S.K. Gupta, Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy Group; Director, Device Design & Assessment.
Dr. G. Govindraj, Associate Director of Electronic and Instrumentation Group; Director, Field Instrumentation.

Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO)
Dr. K. Santhanam; Director, Test Site Preparations.
Dr. M.Vasudev; Range Safety Officer.

 

[unlimittautar]

If India conduct more test then it will be suppress the Indo-US nuclear deal.NSG groups are criticize to India such as Australia & New Zealand. Is that true that Pokhran-II is unsuccessful?If yes how the scientist declared that the test is successful & India got the Thermonuclear weapon?At that time government also declare that the test much better then the expectation.

 

[kuku]

And to think the guys on the net came up with all the theories to prove that observations from other nations were incorrect.

If the gov. is serious about developing submarine launched deterrent, they should complete what was started, if not then just accept the situation and move on.

Lying to the nation should be punished with a jail sentence.

 

[Sridhar]

Pokhran II tests not a failure: Navy chief

Updated on Thursday, August 27, 2009, 14:06 IST ​

Tags:Navy, Sureesh Mehta, Pokhran, II, tests, Santhanam, India
​

Zeenews Bureau

New Delhi: Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta on Thursday said that 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were successful and dismissed claims made by senior DRDO scientist K Santhanam to the contrary.

Reacting to the startling revelation made by the top nuclear scientist K Santhanam, Admiral Mehta said, “The tests were adequate. We believe whatever the scientists tell us. The scientists said the tests were enough and tested. We believe the scientists, as they provide us with nuclear capability.”

Admiral Mehta statement came while he was addressing his farewell press conference in the capital this afternoon.

Admiral Mehta’s statement came even as the Defence Ministry and former national security adviser Brajesh Mishra too dismissed Santhanam’s statement, by asserting that India has a “meaningful” number of nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.

Santhanam, a DRDO scientist who was associated with Pokhran II nuclear tests, had claimed that the tests were only partially successful as the results were much below expectations.

The startling revelations made by Santhanam have raised doubts over country’s nuclear prowess and its ability to conduct such tests.



It has also stirred up a hornet’s nest by giving fresh credence to the earlier debates in the foreign media over the success of India’s nuclear tests

Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations, claimed that the yield for the thermonuclear test or hydrogen bomb in popular usage was much lower than what was claimed.

As per him the yield of Pokharan II tests can only be classified as a “fizzle” rather than big bang.

In nuclear terminology, a test is classified as a fizzle when the yield is below expectation.

Santham had also stressed that the country needs to conduct more nuclear tests to consolidate its position and improve its knowledge of nuclear weapon programme before joining Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

“Based upon the seismic measurements and expert opinion from world over, it is clear that the yield in the thermonuclear device test was much lower than what was claimed. I think it is well documented and that is why I assert that India should not rush into signing the CTBT,'' Santhanam said.

Soon after the tests, the Indian authorities claimed that Pokhran II test was a huge success as it yielded 45 kilotons (KT). However, this was contradicted by the western experts who said that it was not more than 20 KT.

Navy chief dismisses scientist?s claims, says Pokhran II a success

 

[RPK]

Scientists stand on Pokhran II lacks information : Dr. Raj Baldev | World News | World Current Affairs | Current World Affairs | News | Latest News | News Today | International Reporter

New Delhi, India: August 27, 2009 – Interview by Mohan Balaji - Dr. Raj Baldev, you are a famous Cosmo Theorist, well known multiple personality being the Head of God Believers, formerly National Integration Assembly (NIA) (World Peace Mission), on one hand and Head of Scientific Advance Research of Universe & Life (SAROUL). I would like to seek your comments on the stand on 1998 Pokhran Test II, taken by Indian Scientist K. Santhanam, who said the test had practically fizzled out, did not produce the exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion.

Balaji: Dr. Raj Baldev, you are famous author of Two Big Bangs Created the Universe, (Formed in Eternal Space) in which you tried to reconstruct the theory of Big Bang, apart from tracing the origin of the Universe, you also drew the history of atom bomb, first experimented in Albuquerque and used in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Since you are considered well versed in this area, I seek your comments in national interest. Please say something how you consider the stand taken by Indian scientists on Pokhran test?

Dr. Raj Baldev said: The comments given by Indian Scientist K. Santhanam on 1998 Pokhran II Nuclear tests are unfortunate, he should have avoided to create an unnecessary controversy on this vital national subject which might create a negative repercussion and go against the national interest.

Dr. Raj Baldev further said, “ Mr. K.Santhanam has perhaps not gauged the damage that he unintentionally caused to the nation. Keeping update knowledge in mind, I can safely say that Pokhran test II was absolutely successful from the point of view of the exact model that was required; the experiment was meant to get only a specific yield, which does not mean that the test was fizzled out, and this aspect might have not been known to certain scientists who were engaged in the preparations of the experiment, the issue being top secret, the services of many scientists were used but the actual design of the model was kept top secret from them.

Dr. Raj Baldev: “In this model of 1998 Pokhran II Nuclear test, the yield of thermonuclear explosion was calculatedly designed to a specific level for security reasons, and to prevent pilferage of the formula, which was later on adjusted and the entire Nuclear build up held by India became one of the world’s Ist Class categories, better sophisticated than many other countries in the world. To comment upon India’s standard of Pokhran II Nuclear test simply shows that Mr. K.Santhanam might not be belonging to the inner team of scientists who had designed the model of a certain yield for security reasons.”


Dr. Raj Baldev further said: The Defence Ministry has rightly contradicted the stand of Senior DRDO’s assertion that 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were not fully successful, and it is absolutely justified to contradict his stand, he might not be belonging to the inner bracket of top security confident scientists, who had the actual knowledge of the model desired to be tested only with specific yield?

“The critics should not forget that India has its top secret strategy on Nuclear build up and their own perfect standard they needed, and ultimately got it, and the comments given by Mr. Santhanam seem to have lacked the update knowledge about India’s exact Nuclear Policy, its specific model with low yield, and its future use, Dr. Raj Baldev said..

Finally Dr. Raj Baldev, Cosmo Theorist said, “It is for the govt. and the Defence Ministry to take care of their security and also their Nuclear deterrent, which they are observing and maintaining at the top of all securities and it is considered to be one the best in the world. But so far the Indian scientific expertise on this subject is concerned, I would like to say that most of the Indian scientists are not aware how far India has made her advancement in Nuclear perfection, and I feel that Dr. Santhanam is perhaps not fully aware, what specific model the authorities wanted to be experimented with their future plan, even though he was a part of the whole mission?

“Santhanam’s suggestion that India should not rush into signing the CTBT, does not seem to be appropriate, it’s the top security issue for the govt. to decide. In short, India is well protected and is capable of taking proper care of its neighbors, still wish peaceful relations with them in the large interest of World Peace.

Dr. Raj Baldev is also the head of God Believers, who wish world peace all over and for which he has served the world in this area for over 4 decades, and now advise the critics of India not to be misled with their imperfect information.

 

[Sridhar]

Pokhran II was a success, insists Naval chief


Posted: Thursday , Aug 27, 2009 at 1312 hrs New Delhi:

'The scientists said the tests were enough and tested. We believe the scientists.'












Senior DRDO scientist K. Santhanam on Thursday reiterated that there was no question about backing away from his assertion that the 1998 Pokhran II nuclear tests were not fully successful, while the Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, said the tests conducted eleven years ago were adequate. Santhanam emphatically said that he stood by what he had said.
Admiral Mehta, who was addressing his farewell press conference in the capital on Thursday afternoon, said: “The tests were adequate. We believe whatever the scientists tell us. The scientists said the tests were enough and tested. We believe the scientists, as they provide us with nuclear capability.”
Admiral Mehta’s statement came even as the defence ministry and former National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra dismissed Santhanam’s statement, adding that India has a meaningful number of nuclear weapons and an effective delivery system to go with it.


Sources in the ministry told a television channel that India has a nuclear deterrent that is adequate for its security.
Santhanam, who was director for 1998 test site preparations and worked directly under Dr APJ Abdul Kalam when he was the scientific adviser to the then Defence Minister, told a daily in an interview that the yield of thermonuclear explosions was actually much below expectations and the tests were perhaps more a fizzle rather than a big bang.
In nuclear parlance, a test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.
Santhanam said the yield for the thermonuclear test, or hydrogen bomb in popular usage, was much lower than what was claimed. Santhanam also said that given this fact, India should not rush into signing the CTBT.
He emphasized the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapon programme.
The test was said to have yielded 45 kilotons (KT) but was challenged by western experts who said it was not more than 20 KT.
The exact yield of the thermonuclear explosion is important as during the heated debate on the India-US nuclear deal, it was strenuously argued by the government's top scientists that no more tests were required for the weapons programme. It was said the disincentives the nuclear deal imposed on testing would not really matter as further tests were not required.
According to security expert Bharat Karnad, Santhanam's admission is remarkable because this is the first time a nuclear scientist and one closely associated with the 1998 tests has disavowed the government line.
The yield of the thermonuclear device test in 1998 has led to much debate and while western experts have stated that it was not as claimed, BARC has maintained that it stands by its assessment.
Indian scientists had claimed after the test that the thermonuclear device gave a total yield of 45 KT, 15 KT from the fission trigger and 30 KT from the fusion process and that the theoretical yield of the device (200 KT) was reduced to 45 KT in order to minimise seismic damage to villages near the test range.
British experts, however, later challenged the claims saying that the actual combined yield for the fission device and thermonuclear bomb was not more than 20 KT.
Sources claim that Santhanam had admitted that the test was a fizzle during a discussion on CTBT organized by IDSA.
India conducted five nuclear tests at the Pokhran test range. Three of them were conducted on May 11 and two on May 13, 1998.
Rajagopala Chidambaram headed the team, which conducted tests, and the device was developed at the Defence Research and Development Organization’s Ballistics Research Laboratory.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pokhran-ii-was-a-success-insists-naval-chief/507908/0

 

[NSG_Blackcats]

Has there been a US test since signing?

Just tell me if any treaty is not ratified by US senate does it becomes a law in US?
After 1998 India has not done a single test. So by your logic India is following CTBT; so why India need to sign it?

 

[hit&run]

# 35 ^^^, well said Dr.Raj Baldev if someone knows the exact nuclear deterrence of India then neighbour was never going to increase nuclear stock pile like mad dogs.

 

[INDIANBULL]

India is heavily investing on computer simulation tests. we are very close to perfect simulated nuclear fission(3-6 months) and fusion(2-3)years of time. there is no need to test again. there was need to test if the so called yield was to be 'ZERO'.Enemy of India full of joy after this article shouldn't underestimate. India's new friends are providing Nuclear S***s to improve the same. Can't disclose it further. Sceptical on supercomputer simulation nuclear tests are idiots(over and out). i am not sure about the timing of statement if it is well planned? but Mr. Santhanam will have difficult time ahead if wasn't there to speak as per plan.

Dont jump to conclusions, read what the actual scientists say, go to links:

FOXNews.com - Nuclear-Blast Computer Simulations No Match for Real Thing - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
Nuclear-Blast Computer Simulations No Match for Real Thing

The United States has one of the biggest stockpiles but it's getting old, and the government is planning a fresher weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, that could be developed without underground blast tests.

The U.S. government is expected to choose an RRW design next month.

Western governments were pressured into halting tests when the end of the Cold War called nuclear arsenals into question. But Coyle, a former nuclear scientist, worries that information gleaned over 50 years of testing could be lost.

"In all the years I was involved in underground testing, time and again we were surprised. Something would happen that we wouldn't expect," he said. "We would realize that we didn't understand everything about the weapon."

"There's no simulation like the real thing," Coyle added.



And read what our own scientist is saying, he is definitely no a idiot, you can agree i hope:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 938610.cms


He emphasised the need for India to conduct more tests to improve its nuclear weapon programme.

He told TOI that no country has succeeded in achieving targets with only its first test of a thermonuclear device.

 

[I-G]

Pokhran II disclosure puzzles Chidambaram

Updated on Thursday, August 27, 2009, 15:16 IST Tagsokhran, II, disclosure, Chidambaram, Santhanam, DRDO, nuclear

New Delhi: Home Minister P Chidambaram Thursday said he was "puzzled" over a newspaper report stating that the country's second nuclear tests in Pokhran in 1998 had failed to get the desired yield.


"I have seen the report. I am puzzled. The government will find out, somebody will brief you," Chidambaram told reporters after a meeting of the cabinet committee on economic affairs.

He was replying to questions about a report in The Times Of India daily Thursday that quotes a senior scientist associated with the 1998 tests as admitting that the only thermonuclear device tested was a "fizzle." A test is described as a fizzle when it fails to meet the desired yield.

The newspaper quotes K. Santhanam, who was a representative of the Defence Research and Development Organisation and a director for the 1998 test site preparations, who says the three tests were not such a big success as portrayed by the government.


Pokhran II disclosure puzzles Chidambaram